americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org
mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Call For Help - Urgent
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
NCrossman



Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Posts: 60
Location: IDAHO

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:19 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Finally, we got the second video footage uploaded.  Please see my post before as i had edited the youtube link just now.  Sorry, I will try and get the first part footage tonight.  It is about 15 minutes long.  

Thanks for all your help.

HERE IS THE VIDEO #1 LINK THANKS AGAIN..

http://youtu.be/MNQdrLyEu88
_________________
~N

“The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCrossman



Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Posts: 60
Location: IDAHO

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok everyone, sorry about the delay... i got it to work... HERE IS VIDEO #1...

http://youtu.be/MNQdrLyEu88

This is poor video with a lot of other chatter, but the audio here is a lot better than the audio on video #2.  However, this video is 7.5 minutes longer than video #2.  The reason #2 is awesome is because it is more visual than Audio on the scene.  Also, sometimes the Blm agent speaks really low as well as the Boise Co. sheriff.  YOu will have to LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THEM AS IT IS KIND OF LOW.  THANKS
_________________
~N

“The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm still reading the blow by blow and need to watch the videos.

So far, I believe that Nicole handled herself better than properly. She knew the Mining Law where the BLM employee did not, who in fact, was incredibly far off base.

Regardless of the fact that this incident led to an arrest, I think Nicole handled herself perfectly. She uses the right terms, makes the correct challenges and asks the right questions. What's more, she documents it on film and has an additional witness. I don't know many miners who could have handled themselves as well.

Of course, as she has learned first hand, no amount of law stops corruption.

All in all, BLM LEO Sharkey has created some MAJOR problems for himself.

First things first, he claims that HE owns the minerals on the claim. That's a fraudulent assertion.

While I have seen BLM say "this is BLM land", this is the FIRST time I've seen an employee say "This is MINE."

Second, he claims that he has a RIGHT to infringe the United States Constitution because of FLPMA.

That is VERY IMPORTANT, because he has admitted that he is violating your rights. It's on video. Sound evidence that he willfully and knowingly violated your rights.

And as you know, FLPMA says no such thing about him having that right.

What we're seeing is a MAJOR case of abuse of lawful authority, a deprivation of rights under color of law and definite grounds for tort and criminal charges.

It's important that you fight this, because you are in an exceptional position here, Nicole, to make a big difference in the big picture.

Once I get the opportunity to review this more, I'll be in touch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johncrossman



Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think what had helped Nicole was the fact that she had her law binder that SWIMA (SOUTH WEST IDAHO MINING ASSOCIATION) had put together.  Since she is the secretary for SWIMA AND had compiled information from this site, some idaho sites and from people with incredible brains like Glindberg.  however you all have helped to educate this and we greatly appreciate this site beyond any words.  Thanks everyone.  

Nicole has a court date in BOISE CO. on Aug. 6 @ 930.  They say it is on an "obstruction" charge and to get her bail money back.  

Thanks for all the help.   Most importantly, we see why law binders are handy and useful.  She was looking up the law to show the officer on PUBLIC LAND VS. PUBLIC DOMAIN.  he at one point on the video even stated a comment about the cameras and the binders we all had out there.  So just know that technology can and is a great thing.  but education means you can fight back.
_________________
If you always do what you always did
you will always get what you always got
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woof!



Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 90
Location: Gold Trail

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am very sorry for what has happened to you Nicole. From listening to the videos it appears you were arrested for not providing identification papers when requested.

There is no basis in law for law enforcement officers to detain or arrest anyone not engaged in a licensed activity for refusing to show paper identification. As the sheriff did not in any way show an intent to investigate a crime even a demand to orally give your name was unenforceable. To claim that your not "showing" ID could amount to "obstruction" is stretching the intent and purpose of the law well beyond any sustainable interpretation. In my experience I doubt the DA will proceed with any prosecution. If the charge is not dropped or dismissed you should prevail if you stay focused on the charge itself. All the above is predicated on two conditions, This is not to be viewed as legal advice and the transcript and video you offer are the entire record.

All that being said the charge of obstruction is not a mining issue. The transcript and recording you offer makes it clear that neither the BLM agent nor the Sheriff were challenging you or citing you for mining or making a location. Although it is clear the BLM agents are clueless about grantee rights and mining law they did not cite you for your mining activities.

From my perspective it appears the BLM agent became interested in your identity after you stated she was on your mineral claim and then refused to give her a copy of the location notice. From her statements she may be attempting to gather evidence for a charge of trespass. For that she would need a copy of the location and your name. Beware the backdoor "I was investigating a possible crime" as this would trigger a lawful requirement to provide your name. Keep in mind providing your name and presenting paper ID are very different acts in the eyes of the law. This is a very important point.

Enough of my conjecture about your obstruction charge. On it's face it is not a mining issue. What did concern me was the obvious misunderstanding of the mineral grant and the rights of the grantee on a new location. There are different levels of rights associated with the progress of your discovery and the possessory interest rights do not rise to the rights level of a provable valid mineral discovery. Asserting otherwise will not change that fact.

Unlike 1866 I was disturbed at the lack of knowledge presented in the video. I realize in the heat of the moment it's easy to lose sight of the whole picture but the presumed focus of this forum is to enable the miner to be secure in their knowledge of their rights as a mineral estate grantee. Simply defining the answer to the sixth question in our current lesson would have cleared up most of the misunderstanding of the law I viewed in those videos.

I have continually stated on this and other forums that a sound understanding of the mining acts is fundamental to our fight for our granted rights. This particular incident has made me aware that a course in general principles of law and in particular the most productive way to handle encounters with government agents may be an essential part of education for mineral estate grantees. I am not second guessing you Nicole but if you knew to ask "are you investigating a crime" in response to the officers request for ID the response to that question may have led to an much more secure outcome to this incident.

Woof!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, from the exchange, I don't see any evidence that Sharkey was investigating a trespass and that wouldn't stand up in a just court.

Nicole informs him that "the location notice is on that tree".

Sharkey does not ask to be shown the notice, but instead asks where the the corner markers are, when the notice (regardless of form/status) is the only lawful evidence of title.  Needless to say, Sharkey is clearly not looking to investigate a potential trespass. (In reality, Sharkey appears to be looking to challenge the existemce of a right).

Where a potential trespass problem WOULD have originated is if Sharkey had examined that notice and then asked for ID to clarify that Nicole was the owner. In that instance, a refusal to provide ID might raise questions about a trespass since requesting ID would then at least be a reasonable request. Then there would be grounds for an investigation, but even then, a refusal should still not trigger an arrest for "obstruction" without an explanation.

The fact still remains, even a documented investigation would not be grounds for an arrest over a refusal to provide ID. This isn't China (not yet), as the 4th amendment still protects the right to be secure in your papers, person and property and a warrant is REQUIRED.

As well, from the get-go, Nicole questions the very idea that Sharkey is in fact, bona-fide law enforcement. At no time does Sharkey actually validate any credentials beyond saying "I'm a federal agent" and then goes into a diatribe about "I own these minerals and I have authority to violate your rights".

Nicole again challenges Sharkey with "You are just a land manager".

From my perspective, Sharkey fails to prove lawful authority or jurisdiction and in fact, even admits that she doesn't know the statute number or particulars of the so-called crime. At no time does Sharkey provide any credibility or evidence that she is law enforcement and in fact, she acts in such a manner that would indicate that she is in reality an imposter.

While Nicole could have asked if this was an investigation of a crime, I don't think it's as important as it may it appear to be on the surface, for the simple fact that she is challenging the idea that Sharkey is law enforcement.

Could Nicole have handled herself differently or better? Could she have asked more questions. Sure.

I've been in this situation enough myself and reviewed enough video/audio to realize that no matter how well you handle the situation, you will always make mistakes and you can always do better. Seemingly obvious questions to ask don't get asked and obvious challenges to make don't get made.

Of course, keep in mind, the miner is always caught off-balanced, either just enjoying themselves or with their head stuck underwater. And in this day and age, the off balanced miner is off-balanced further by being faced by thugs armed to the teeth.

That said, I think she did alright and in fact, better than a majority that are placed in this position. I think the most important thing is that she challenged authority and jurisdiction and Sharkey failed to answer properly. And what's more it's documented.

While I agree that it's not really a mining issue, at the same time, Sharkey becomes aggressive the moment that Nicole identifies herself as a miner. This leads me to think that like Oregon, Idaho's US Attorney is instructing the agencies to "not take crap from any miners", to "go after the miners" and to "fear the miners".

Ultimately, Nicole is being treated like a 2nd Class Citizen for the simple fact that she is a miner.

Sharkey has BIG problems.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GoldPatriot



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 219
Location: Waldport, Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the second video, as the Deputy started to handcuff Ms. Jailbird, when she asked, "what am I being arrested for", The reply from the Deputy I believe was, "for trespass".  This only adds to the problem of the state's case.

They say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  While true, it cuts both ways.

Although the videos are of poor quality, but better than not having video, it is clear that once the agent was advised by Ms.Jailbird, that "the properly was properly posted", unless the video was somehow altered, I think it's safe to say that the agent made no effort to confirm or deny the fact.  In addition, the agent could have very easily requested the responding Deputy to verify such posting.  But it is also clear, neither the agent or the Deputy cared what the facts were or what laws applied in this matter.

I can tell you from my own experience, Deputies do not normally make themselves as available, as quickly as we witnessed in this case.  Only two possibilities can explain the immediate availability of the Deputy to this scene.  Either the agent pre-contacted the Deputy and asked him to stand by, or the that the Deputy was in the immediate area by pure accident.  Given the time of day and the fact that the criminal trespass by the agent took place, only after Ms. Jailbird's husband left the site, lends itself to a preplanned confrontation.

This may have been another attempted  "Hefty" heist, gone bad because people were still in the camp.

But it is also fair to say, that both the agent and the Deputy were unprepared to have a knowledgeable woman, know her rights, the limits of federal agents and under what legal circumstances, a person is required to to comply with an unlawful command.  This would explain why the agent and Deputy felt it necessary to make an arrest in this matter, without first having a legal case to act upon.  Neither the agent or Deputy were smart enough to know when Ms. Jailbird called their buff, their only legal recourse was to leave the scene, all the better for their new found legal education.

But these two taxpayer paid idiots, not only showed their ignorance of the law and property rights, they showed a total disregard for civil rights, privacy rights and the Constitution.

As other have stated before, while it is a shame that Ms.Jailbird was arrested and now has to follow through on defending herself (kinda seems unfair to the two arresting idiots), this case opened new proof of the abuse so many have faced for years in the mining community.  As such, this case will shine a light on the corrupt actions of the federal agents and those state police agencies, that care more for the "brotherhood", than they do in enforcing the laws of this country and protecting the American public.

While I may sound like a broken record, I believe this case can not be concluded until the agent, Deputy and their direct supervisors are removed from employment and benefits.  For I see these acts as actions against this country, not just the miners.
_________________
" America is at that awkward stage......... It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johncrossman



Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So now that we have had a little time to review this case, what's the next step? We already have moved camp to avoid trouble, but we are still mining and will continue to do so.
_________________
If you always do what you always did
you will always get what you always got
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCrossman



Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Posts: 60
Location: IDAHO

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know this is the least of the matters here but I was wondering if this would be collusion of some sort?

And Den, you make a great point about the officer being so readily available when called.  Here is a little background. I was "arrested " in Garden Valley, ID, in BOISE County.  This town has maybe 300-400 people, give or take.  The Sheriff here is not always available, as they usually only have one that patrols over so much of Boise Co.  In fact, several weeks ago, (we don't get a lot of trashy "campers" there usually) but there was and come 1Am they were still blaring music, shooting guns and then speeding up and down the road. We called for an officer to come out and handle it. They never showed up because they didn't have anyone in the area.

Also, with my case, the response for the sheriff from when Sharkey called, was less than 5 min. to drive up. This is exceptionally rare in this county especially since it wasn't an emergency call. However, when my husband tried to call dispatch to figure out where I was being transported to, the dispatch just placed him on hold; never answering him again.  Which tells me that something was askew!

Honestly, I don't know what happened between the agent Weiss who just wanted to look at my setup in camp and then Sharkey who in my opinion impersonated an officer by being able to give me a body search and transporting me.  If this is the case of just handing assumed prisoners over to non law enforcement agencies because of an o.t. issue on the shift, then I want to be able to transport them and collect transportation fees ($25) from them. Smile
_________________
~N

“The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woof!



Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 90
Location: Gold Trail

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1866 wrote:

The fact still remains, even a documented investigation would not be grounds for an arrest over a refusal to provide ID. This isn't China (not yet), as the 4th amendment still protects the right to be secure in your papers, person and property and a warrant is REQUIRED.


Thanks for your opinion 1866.
As per "Boxy" on the GPAA forum the Supreme Court disagrees with your statement above:
Quote:
I can't speak to this particular incident but every American should know their rights and responsibilities when encountering law enforcement.

If a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed or has been committed they have a right to ask for and receive identification. This means that the suspect must orally provide their real and full name.

There is no legal requirement to provide a drivers license unless the suspect is driving a motor vehicle.

There is no legal requirement to provide government ID or any other form of paper ID.

If the officer can not articulate a reasonable suspicion of a crime they have no right to detain you or demand identification (your name).

Not legal advice but here are the defining cases from the Supreme Court that back up that information.

Supreme Court Terry

Supreme Court Hiibel

Please note that the Terry case established the law on stop and identify (Terry stops) in 1968 - before many of you were adults. If you doubt the power of the question "are you investigating a crime?" you need to read Terry again.

As the charge is obstruction via a refusal to identify the (potential) court would be in error to consider facts not germane to the charge. Judges just hate being overturned on error.   Embarassed

As I wrote before you should prevail if you stay focused on the charge itself. Establishing that the arresting officer (the sheriff not the BLM agent) can not articulate a reasonable suspicion of a crime is the key element that will result in an acquittal.

Woof!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum